# Julia 1.11 is slower than 1.10?

**URL:** <https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077>\
**Category:** Internals & Design\
**Tags:** regression\
**Created:** [October 9, 2024, 2:21am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077 "2024-10-09T02:21:50Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![jling](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/jling/32/212909_2.png) [@jling](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/jling)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 10:42pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/22 "2024-10-09T22:42:28Z")

</div>

> [@ufechner7](#):
>
> ` 244.9 ms ± 2.1 ms`

we have the same CPU, so why is this time double of mine? do you have startup script?

also are you sure you’re not running `rc4`? rc4 is stable for me:

```julia
akako@frame16 ~> hyperfine --warmup 1 'julia +1.11.0-rc4 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"'
Benchmark 1: julia +1.11.0-rc4 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"
  Time (mean ± σ): 99.7 ms ± 7.9 ms [User: 64.4 ms, System: 54.6 ms]
  Range (min … max): 89.0 ms … 120.7 ms 29 runs

akako@frame16 ~> hyperfine --warmup 1 'julia +1.11.0 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"'
Benchmark 1: julia +1.11.0 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"
  Time (mean ± σ): 124.9 ms ± 59.2 ms [User: 309.2 ms, System: 44.7 ms]
  Range (min … max): 80.4 ms … 206.4 ms 14 runs

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronis\_BR](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ronis_br/32/50999_2.png) [@Ronis\_BR](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Ronis_BR)\
**Post date:** [October 9, 2024, 11:56pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/23 "2024-10-09T23:56:24Z")

</div>

I am also seeing a **huge** pre-compilation increase in 1.11 compared to 1.10.

**Julia 1.10**

```julia
julia> using PrettyTables

julia> A = ones(2, 2)
2×2 Matrix{Float64}:
 1.0 1.0
 1.0 1.0

julia> @time pretty_table(A)
┌────────┬────────┐
│ Col. 1 │ Col. 2 │
├────────┼────────┤
│ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
│ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
└────────┴────────┘
  0.032161 seconds (42.28 k allocations: 3.059 MiB, 97.47% compilation time)

```

**Julia 1.11**

```julia
julia> using PrettyTables

julia> A = ones(2, 2)
2×2 Matrix{Float64}:
 1.0 1.0
 1.0 1.0

julia> @time pretty_table(A)
┌────────┬────────┐
│ Col. 1 │ Col. 2 │
├────────┼────────┤
│ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
│ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
└────────┴────────┘
  0.125523 seconds (784.80 k allocations: 42.458 MiB, 34.03% gc time, 99.67% compilation time: 78% of which was recompilation)

```

Any ideas where should I start to look for possible fixes?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lmiq](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/lmiq/32/18314_2.png) [@lmiq](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/lmiq)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 12:20am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/24 "2024-10-10T00:20:15Z")

</div>

Maybe that’s related to the StyledStrings package.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![giordano](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/giordano/32/2166_2.png) [@giordano](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/giordano)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 12:21am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/25 "2024-10-10T00:21:25Z")

</div>

> [@Ronis\_BR](#):
>
> Any ideas where should I start to look for possible fixes?

[`--trace-compile`](https://docs.julialang.org/en/v1/manual/command-line-interface/#command-line-interface)

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ufechner7](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ufechner7/32/51363_2.png) [@ufechner7](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ufechner7)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 4:58am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/26 "2024-10-10T04:58:27Z")

</div>

> [@jling](#):
>
> we have the same CPU, so why is this time double of mine? do you have startup script?

```julia
ufechner@framework:~$ hyperfine --warmup 1 'julia +1.11 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"'
Benchmark 1: julia +1.11 --startup-file=no -e "1+1"
  Time (mean ± σ): 205.9 ms ± 2.8 ms [User: 719.6 ms, System: 57.0 ms]
  Range (min … max): 201.9 ms … 212.2 ms 14 runs

```

This is on grid power. If I see it correctly you have a framework16, I have framework14 which does not have the same CPU.

```julia
ufechner@framework:~$ julia +1.11
               _
   _ _ _(_)_ | Documentation: https://docs.julialang.org
  (_) | (_) (_) |
   _ _ _| |_ __ _ | Type "?" for help, "]?" for Pkg help.
  | | | | | | |/ _` | |
  | | |_| | | | (_| | | Version 1.11.0 (2024-10-07)
 _/ |\ __'_|_|_|\__'_| | Official https://julialang.org/ release
|__/ |

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronis\_BR](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ronis_br/32/50999_2.png) [@Ronis\_BR](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Ronis_BR)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 10:41am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/27 "2024-10-10T10:41:47Z")

</div>

Thanks!

I opened an issue:

> <https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/56080>
>
> Hi!
> 
> I am seeing a huge precompilation overhead using Julia 1.11:
> 
> \*\*Julia 1.10\*…\*
> 
> \`\`\`
> julia\> using PrettyTables
> 
> julia\> A = ones(2, 2)
> 2×2 Matrix{Float64}:
> 1.0 1.0
> 1.0 1.0
> 
> julia\> @time pretty\_table(A)
> ┌────────┬────────┐
> │ Col. 1 │ Col. 2 │
> ├────────┼────────┤
> │ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
> │ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
> └────────┴────────┘
> 0.032161 seconds (42.28 k allocations: 3.059 MiB, 97.47% compilation time)
> \`\`\`
> 
> \*\*Julia 1.11\*\*
> 
> \`\`\`
> julia\> using PrettyTables
> 
> julia\> A = ones(2, 2)
> 2×2 Matrix{Float64}:
> 1.0 1.0
> 1.0 1.0
> 
> julia\> @time pretty\_table(A)
> ┌────────┬────────┐
> │ Col. 1 │ Col. 2 │
> ├────────┼────────┤
> │ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
> │ 1.0 │ 1.0 │
> └────────┴────────┘
> 0.125523 seconds (784.80 k allocations: 42.458 MiB, 34.03% gc time, 99.67% compilation time: 78% of which was recompilation)
> \`\`\`
> 
> This issue leads to a very large time to print the first table in PrettyTables.jl. Unfortunately, I could not obtain a minimum working example.
> 
> Using \`--track-compilation\`, as suggested by @giordano, leads to:
> 
> \*\*Julia 1.10\*\*
> 
> \`\`\`
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.seek), Base.GenericIOBuffer{Array{UInt8, 1}}, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.something), REPL.LineEdit.Prompt, REPL.LineEdit.Prompt})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.ones), Int64, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.show), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Base.Multimedia.MIME{Symbol("text/plain")}, Array{Float64, 2}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.alignment), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Float64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.show), Base.IOContext{Base.GenericIOBuffer{Array{UInt8, 1}}}, String, Float64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.replace\_in\_print\_matrix), Array{Float64, 2}, Int64, Int64, String})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{Base.IOContext{IO\_t} where IO\_t\<:IO}, Base.TTY, Pair{Symbol, Bool}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_preprocess\_vec\_or\_mat), Array{Float64, 2}, Nothing})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.get), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Symbol, Nothing})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_getdata), Array{Float64, 2}})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{Base.IOContext{IO\_t} where IO\_t\<:IO}, Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Pair{Symbol, Array{Any, 1}}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.sym\_in), Symbol, NTuple{17, Symbol}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.kwcall), NamedTuple{(:alignment, :cell\_alignment, :header\_alignment, :header\_cell\_alignment, :max\_num\_of\_columns, :max\_num\_of\_rows, :show\_header, :show\_subheader), Tuple{Symbol, Nothing, Symbol, Nothing, Int64, Int64, Bool, Bool}}, Type{PrettyTables.ProcessedTable}, Array{Float64, 2}, Tuple{Array{String, 1}}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.escape\_string), Base.GenericIOBuffer{Array{UInt8, 1}}, String, String})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_convert\_axes), Array{Float64, 2}, Int64, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{Base.IOContext{IO\_t} where IO\_t\<:IO}, Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Pair{Symbol, Bool}, Pair{Symbol, Bool}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.kwcall), NamedTuple{(:context,), Tuple{Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}}}, typeof(Base.sprint), Function, Float64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_flush\_display!), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, PrettyTables.Display, Bool, Bool, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.Ryu.writefixed), Float64, Int64})
> \`\`\`
> 
> \*\*Julia 1.11\*\*
> 
> \`\`\`
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.seek), Base.GenericIOBuffer{GenericMemory{:not\_atomic, UInt8, Core.AddrSpace{Core}(0x00)}}, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.something), REPL.LineEdit.Prompt, REPL.LineEdit.Prompt})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.in), String, Array{String, 1}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(REPL.LineEdit.history\_prev\_prefix), REPL.LineEdit.PrefixSearchState, REPL.REPLHistoryProvider, AbstractString})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.ones), Int64, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.show), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Base.Multimedia.MIME{:var"text/plain"}, Array{Float64, 2}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.alignment), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Float64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.show), Base.IOContext{Base.GenericIOBuffer{GenericMemory{:not\_atomic, UInt8, Core.AddrSpace{Core}(0x00)}}}, String, Float64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.replace\_in\_print\_matrix), Array{Float64, 2}, Int64, Int64, String})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.repeat), Char, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{NamedTuple{(:sortkeys,), T} where T\<:Tuple}, Tuple{Bool}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.:(==)), Bool, Bool})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{NamedTuple{(:foreground,), T} where T\<:Tuple}, Tuple{Symbol}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.memoryref), GenericMemory{:not\_atomic, NamedTuple{(:pos, :active, :index), Tuple{Int64, Bool, Int64}}, Core.AddrSpace{Core}(0x00)}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.memoryref), GenericMemory{:not\_atomic, Array{Pair{Symbol, Any}, 1}, Core.AddrSpace{Core}(0x00)}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.pretty\_table), Any})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{Base.IOContext{IO\_t} where IO\_t\<:IO}, Base.TTY, Pair{Symbol, Bool}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_preprocess\_vec\_or\_mat), Array{Float64, 2}, Nothing})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.kwcall), NamedTuple{(:header,), Tuple{Tuple{Array{String, 1}}}}, typeof(PrettyTables.\_print\_table), IO, Any})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.get), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Symbol, Nothing})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_getdata), Array{Float64, 2}})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{Base.IOContext{IO\_t} where IO\_t\<:IO}, Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Pair{Symbol, Array{Any, 1}}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.kwcall), NamedTuple{(:alignment, :cell\_alignment, :header\_alignment, :header\_cell\_alignment, :max\_num\_of\_columns, :max\_num\_of\_rows, :show\_header, :show\_subheader), Tuple{Symbol, Nothing, Symbol, Nothing, Int64, Int64, Bool, Bool}}, Type{PrettyTables.ProcessedTable}, Array{Float64, 2}, Tuple{Array{String, 1}}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.setindex!), GenericMemory{:not\_atomic, Int64, Core.AddrSpace{Core}(0x00)}, Int64, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.escape\_string), Base.GenericIOBuffer{GenericMemory{:not\_atomic, UInt8, Core.AddrSpace{Core}(0x00)}}, String, String})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_convert\_axes), Array{Float64, 2}, Int64, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{Base.IOContext{IO\_t} where IO\_t\<:IO}, Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, Pair{Symbol, Bool}, Pair{Symbol, Bool}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Core.kwcall), NamedTuple{(:context,), Tuple{Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}}}, typeof(Base.sprint), Function, Float64})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.\_flush\_display!), Base.IOContext{Base.TTY}, PrettyTables.Display, Bool, Bool, Int64})
> precompile(Tuple{Type{NamedTuple{(:value, :time, :bytes, :gctime, :gcstats, :lock\_conflicts, :compile\_time, :recompile\_time), T} where T\<:Tuple}, Tuple{Nothing, Float64, Int64, Float64, Base.GC\_Diff, Int64, Float64, Float64}})
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.getproperty), NamedTuple{(:value, :time, :bytes, :gctime, :gcstats, :lock\_conflicts, :compile\_time, :recompile\_time), Tuple{Nothing, Float64, Int64, Float64, Base.GC\_Diff, Int64, Float64, Float64}}, Symbol})
> \`\`\`
> 
> Is this expected? Is there anything I can do to improve it?
> 
> Although I am not 100% sure, I remember testing it in a very earlier version of 1.11 and found not big discrepancy.
> 
> \*\*EDIT:\*\* I cannot understand why I am seeing recompilation of functions like:
> 
> \`\`\`
> precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.pretty\_table), Any})
> \`\`\`
> 
> since I am using PrecompileTools.jl and it should be already precompiled.

Julia 1.11 is recompiling a lot of functions that it should not. For example, I am using PrecompileTools.jl and a very basic call:

```julia
precompile(Tuple{typeof(PrettyTables.pretty_table), Any})

```

is being recompiled.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tecosaur](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tecosaur/32/23206_2.png) [@tecosaur](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tecosaur)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 10:48am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/28 "2024-10-10T10:48:49Z")

</div>

I’ve hit a bunch of seemingly excessive recompilation in 1.11 too, in one of my packages it takes the load time from ~80ms to ~400ms 😨

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronis\_BR](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ronis_br/32/50999_2.png) [@Ronis\_BR](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Ronis_BR)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 5:40pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/29 "2024-10-10T17:40:00Z")

</div>

Good to know that I am not alone 🙂 Can you please comment on that issue stating the packages with problems so that we can track the issue?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronis\_BR](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ronis_br/32/50999_2.png) [@Ronis\_BR](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Ronis_BR)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2024, 9:47pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/30 "2024-10-10T21:47:43Z")

</div>

I found a “workaround” (that probably is not good to solve the problem). If I add REPL.jl as dependency of PrettyTables.jl and add `using REPL`, all the overhead is gone. Can you please test if this works for you too?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tecosaur](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tecosaur/32/23206_2.png) [@tecosaur](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tecosaur)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2024, 2:02am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/31 "2024-10-11T02:02:07Z")

</div>

> [@Ronis\_BR](#):
>
> stating the packages

The “package” I’m working on is a group of several interdependent development-version packages after large refactors, which makes it a bit hard to use as a MWE 😅. I might once they’re released if I can’t fix the latency.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tecosaur](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tecosaur/32/23206_2.png) [@tecosaur](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tecosaur)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2024, 2:56pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/32 "2024-10-13T14:56:05Z")

</div>

Just FWIW, while it takes a bit of effort to reproduce (you’ll need to clone my new monorepo and dev the package + dependencies), here’s the shift I’m seeing and worried by:

```julia
~$ julia +1.10 --startup-file=no -q
julia> @time using DataToolkitBase
  0.129546 seconds (206.15 k allocations: 16.930 MiB, 8.77% compilation time)

~$ julia +1.11 --startup-file=no -q
julia> @time using DataToolkitBase
  0.387633 seconds (1.33 M allocations: 68.664 MiB, 2.82% gc time, 63.12% compilation time: 95% of which was recompilation)

~$ julia +nightly --startup-file=no -q
julia> @time using DataToolkitBase
  0.520751 seconds (2.43 M allocations: 127.553 MiB, 5.86% gc time, 73.58% compilation time: 39% of which was recompilation)

```

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronis\_BR](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ronis_br/32/50999_2.png) [@Ronis\_BR](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Ronis_BR)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2024, 4:24pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/33 "2024-10-13T16:24:12Z")

</div>

Hi @tecosaur !

Can you please do one test? Add REPL.jl as dependency to DataToolkitBase and add `using REPL` at the beginning of `DataToolKitBase.jl`. If the amount of recompilation reduces a lot, you are facing the same issue that I am. Otherwise, it is something different.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tecosaur](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/tecosaur/32/23206_2.png) [@tecosaur](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/tecosaur)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2024, 4:31pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/34 "2024-10-13T16:31:05Z")

</div>

Sure 🙂. For this, adding `REPL` makes no difference. I also see large latency increases with other packages that don’t do anything with display code (e.g. `DataDeps`, which goes from `0.07`s to `0.16`s).

I mention this because I think there’s a bit more happening with latency in 1.11/nightly than just what you’ve observed with `REPL`.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ufechner7](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ufechner7/32/51363_2.png) [@ufechner7](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/ufechner7)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2024, 4:37pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/35 "2024-10-13T16:37:09Z")

</div>

> [@tecosaur](#):
>
> I also see large latency increases with other packages

This are the known issues:

`https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues?q=is%3Aopen+label%3A%22regression+1.11%22+label%3Acompiler%3Alatency`

This link does not work, but if you copy and past the link into the browser it works.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ronis\_BR](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/ronis_br/32/50999_2.png) [@Ronis\_BR](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/Ronis_BR)\
**Post date:** [October 13, 2024, 4:38pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/36 "2024-10-13T16:38:17Z")

</div>

Yes! So my problem seems completely unrelated. Anyway, at least I have a good (but bad) workaround: adding REPL until we can figure out how to fix those issues.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![mgkuhn](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/mgkuhn/32/6276_2.png) [@mgkuhn](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/mgkuhn)\
**Post date:** [October 16, 2024, 9:20pm UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/37 "2024-10-16T21:20:47Z")

</div>

Seems to be fixed in 1.11.1 (128 ms) compared to 1.10.5 (160 ms).

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sijo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/da6949/32.png) [@sijo](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/sijo)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 8:06am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/38 "2024-10-17T08:06:28Z")

</div>

What seems really slower for me, also in 1.11.1, is the startup time for the interactive session. I don’t know how to measure it properly: evaluating “exit()” seems to force non-interactive mode even when the `-i` flag is passed to julia so I can’t use the shell `time` or hyperfine. But my impression is:

`julia +1.10 --startup-file=no`: loads basically instantly

`julia +1.11 --startup-file=no`: takes about 1 second!

`julia +1.11.1 --startup-file=no`: same as 1.11

Does anyone else see the same thing?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 9:09am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/39 "2024-10-17T09:09:15Z")

</div>

> [@sijo](#):
>
> Does anyone else see the same thing?

Not here. Try with `--trace-compile=stderr`.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![sijo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/da6949/32.png) [@sijo](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/sijo)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 9:57am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/40 "2024-10-17T09:57:14Z")

</div>

With 1.11 and 1.11.1 this reports `precompile(Tuple{typeof(Base.print), Base.TTY, String})`, while 1.10 reports nothing…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![nsajko](https://sea2.discourse-cdn.com/julialang/user_avatar/discourse.julialang.org/nsajko/32/221187_2.png) [@nsajko](https://discourse.julialang.org/u/nsajko)\
**Post date:** [October 17, 2024, 11:22am UTC](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077/41 "2024-10-17T11:22:26Z")

</div>

What’s the `versioninfo()`? Probably you want to report an issue.

[Previous page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077.md?page=1)

[Next page](https://discourse.julialang.org/t/julia-1-11-is-slower-than-1-10/121077.md?page=3)